In In re Scrap Metal Antitrust Litig., No. 06-4511, 2008 WL 2050820 (6th Cir. May 15, 2008), the Sixth Circuit affirmed the $20 million jury verdict. The Sixth Circuit rejected defendants’ Daubert challenge premised on the claim that plaintiffs’ expert relied on unreliable data. The court characterized this type of attack as one directed to the results and not the methodology and therefore should not be excluded under Daubert. Rather, “vigorous” cross-examination should be sufficient to reveal to the jury these flaws. Notably, the defendants’ expert conceded that even use of the flawed data should not affect the results because those data moved in parallel to the defense expert’s data. This decision illustrates the importance of showing in a Daubert challenge that any flaws were actually material to the result. “Pitfalls to Avoid in Proving Price-Fixing Damages,” Antitrust Litigator (Spring 2006) — linked in the Articles page above — examines strategies to pursue in Daubert challenges. The Sixth Circuit also affirmed class certification holding that the predominance requirement was satisfied because there was a class-wide method to prove damages
Apr
22
Posted by : | On : April 22, 2008
The Antitrust Division (Criminal Section) has been busy lately. On April 19, the Criminal Section obtained plea agreements in two separate investigations. Today, the Criminal Section announced the unsealing of an indictment in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The indictment alleges that defendants agreed to have one company withdraw from bidding to supply TACOM night vision goggles to a military procurement unit for Iraq. The indictment charges wire fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud and money laundering. Notably absent is a charge for violating Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The failure to charge such an offense usually indicates that no actual bid was rigged. The March 15, 2008 Post discusses the Criminal Section’s spotty trial record over the last year.
Apr
18
Posted by : | On : April 18, 2008
Today, an Italian executive agreed to plead guilty for his involvement in the Marine Hose Cartel. His plea agreement includes incarceration of one year and one day and a $20,000 fine. In addition, a Long Island defense contractor agreed to plead guilty to bid rigging and a conspiracy to commit wire fraud for his participation in a conspiracy to rig bids on Navy contracts for straps which are used to secure munitions. His sentence was left entirely to the Court’s discretion. Most criminal cases brought by the Antitrust Divisions are resolved by plea agreements. As discussed in the March 15, 2008 Post, the trial record of the Criminal Section (Antitrust Division) has been spotty. It has lost three trials within the last year.
Apr
10
Posted by : | On : April 10, 2008
In Madison Square Garden, L.P. v. Nat’l Hockey League, No. 07-4927-CV, 2008 WL 746524 (2d Cir. Mar. 19, 2008), the Second Circuit denied Madison Square Garden — owner of the Rangers — a preliminary injunction against threatened fines for non-compliance with the NHL’s internet policy. That policy requires that all team websites had to be migrated to a common technology platform managed by the NHL and linked to the NHL’s website. When threatened, MSG brought suit seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive relief based on alleged violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and the Donnelly Act. The Southern District of New York denied MSG’s motion for a preliminary injunction and the Second Circuit affirmed holding that “MSG failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions” on the merits. Id. at *2. The Second Circuit refused to apply a “quick look” because “the likelihood of anticompetitive effects is not] so obvious that ‘an observed with even a rudimentary understanding of economics could conclude that the arrangements in question would have an anticompetitive effect on customers and markets.'” Id. (citations omitted). In applying the rule of reason, the Second Circuit held that “MSG did not show that the NHL’s website ban has had an actual adverse effect on competition in the relevant market. Nor did MSG demonstrate that the many procompetitive benefits of the NHL’s restriction could be achieved through an alternative means that is less restrictive of competition. While there will certainly be substantive issues for the district court to address on the merits-for example, how the antitrust laws apply to the NHL as a sports league, and what the relevant market is in this case-the district court’s conclusion that preliminary injunctive relief was unwarranted falls well within the range of permissible decisions, and did not constitute an abuse of discretion.” Id. This case illustrates the difficulty of a sports team’s ability to challenge league action which benefits the league collectively. It should be noted, however, that NHL is unlikely to receive immunity under the Copperweld doctrine. See, e.g., Nat’l Hockey League Players Ass’n v. Plymouth Whalers Hockey Club, 419 F.3d 462 (6th Cir. 2005) (“courts considering the actions of professional sports leagues have found the leagues to be joint ventures whose members act in concert (i.e., agree ) to promulgate league rules, rather than one solitary acting unit”).
Apr
08
Posted by : | On : April 8, 2008
On March 24, 2008, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted partial summary judgment and dismissed plaintiffs’ challenge to the Star Network’s fixed interchanges fees that was based on a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. See In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litig., No. C 04-02676 CRB, 2008 WL 793876 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2008). This action challenges the fixed fee that the Star Network (through its members) pays to the owner of the ATM used by the cardholder. The court applied the rule of reason because the fixed fee is “reasonably necessary to the legitimate cooperative aspects of the venture.” Id. at *10 (citation omitted). The court concluded that fixed nature of “the fee promotes cooperation between the venture’s members and cannot be set individually. Under the circumstances, that is all Defendants must show to avoid a per se analysis.” Id. The court, however, certified the question for interlocutory appeal because there is “serious doctrinal confusion over the proper analysis of cooperative arrangements among competitors.” Id. at 12 (citation omitted).
Apr
03
Posted by : | On : April 3, 2008
On March 28, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the grant of class certification in In re New Motor Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation, Nos. 07-2257, 07-2258, 07-2259, 2008 WL (1st Cir. Mar. 28, 2008). In that case, plaintiffs alleged a conspiracy among car manufacturers — a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act — to discourage U.S. customers from purchasing cars in Canada — which were cheaper at the time due to favorable exchange rates — for their use in the U.S. The manufacturers allegedly used a variety of mechanisms to discourage this customer practice such as refusing to honor warranties on Canadian cars. The United States District Court for the District of Maine certified two classes — (1) injunctive relief class under Section 16 of the Clayton Act and (2) damages class under various state antitrust and consumer protection laws. Defendants argued that plaintiffs’ claim for injunctive relief was moot because there is no longer a “realistic threat” of future harm. As a result of the weak dollar, there is no longer a realistic threat that manufacturers will conspire to keep consumers from importing cars from Canada. The Third Circuit agreed and reversed class certification on the injunctive relief claim with instructions to dismiss that claim. The Third Circuit also agreed with the District Court’s treatment of the damages class — that plaintiffs should have more time to develop their theories to support class certification. The Third Circuit, nevertheless, vacated the preliminary grant of class certification because it was concerned that subject matter jurisdiction no longer existed. With the federal claim now dismissed, there would have to be an independent basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction over the damages claims under state law. The District Court was instructed to determine if jurisdiction existed.
Mar
15
Posted by : | On : March 15, 2008
In March 2008, the Antitrust division (Criminal Section) lost two price-fixing cases. On March 7, 2008, after an 11-day trial, Judge Phyllis Hamilton of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California declared a mistrial in United States v. Swanson because of a hung jury (which voted 10-2 for acquittal). The Antitrust Division has decided not to re-try Swanson. Charles Swanson, a former U.S. executive of Hynix Semiconductor, was the only defendant to go to trial in the cartel prosecutions of DRAM manufacturers. Four corporations (Samsung, Hynix, Infineon and Elpida Memory) and 16 individuals pleaded guilty. Fines exceeded $730 million and individual prison sentences ranged from 3 to 10 months. John Barthko of Barthko Zankel Tarrant & Miller represented Swanson. On March 12, 2008, the U.K. House of Lords declined to extradite Ian Norris, the former CEO of Morgan Crucible who the Antitrust Division (Criminal Section) had indicted for price-fixing in connection with electrical carbon cartel. Price-fixing was not a crime in the U.K. at the time that Norris was indicted and, therefore, Norris was not subject to extradition for the offense. To avoid that obstacle, the Antitrust Division also charged Norris with obstruction of justice and sought his extradition on that charge. Norris is subject to further proceedings and potential extradition on the obstruction charge. He was represented by Lawrence Byrne (Linklaters LLP) in the United States and Alistair Graham (White & Case LLP) in the U.K. This is the fourth recent blow to the Antitrust Division’s Criminal Section. On November 30, 2007, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware dismissed a price-fixing indictment against Stolt-Nielsen holding that the Antitrust Division breached its amnesty agreement. See United States v. Stolt-Nielsen S.A., 524 F. Supp. 2d 609 (E.D. Penn 2007). Solt was represented by Mark Gidley and Chris Curran (White & Case LLP). On July 19, 2007, Stora Enso North America was acquitted of price-fixing in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The jury returned its verdict in less than two hours.
Feb
25
Posted by : | On : February 25, 2008
January 7, 2008. In Kentucky Speedway, LLC v. Nat’l Ass’n of Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc., Civil Action No. 05-138 (WOB), 2008 WL 113987 (E.D.K.y. Jan. 7, 2008), the district court granted summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s Section 1 and 2 claims. Kentucky Speedway sued because NASCAR refused to sponsor a NEXTEL race at its track. The Court considered it a “jilted distributor” case. It found that Kentucky Speedway failed to come forward with sufficient proof of relevant product market — an essential of element of both its Section 1 and 2 claims. It rejected the proposed relevant markets of a sanctioning market for the NEXTEL race and a hosting market for the same race. It granted NASCAR’s Daubert motion to exclude Kentucky Speedway’s expert because he did no study to determine the cross-elasticity of demand between NEXTEL races and other potential substitutes such as sporting events in general. Rather, Kentucky Speedway’s expert assumed only that a Bush NASCAR race event was a potential substitute.